Breaking: US Navy destroyer takes on water after collision off Japanese coast

a reply to: Doxanoxa

Why not? It's happened before, so what makes this one so special? Two submarines, had horrific accidents that resulted in major damage to one sub, and a dead crew member, and the deaths of a number of Japanese students. I don't know how many surface ships have managed to collide with everything from commercial tankers, to submarines, to Navy resupply ships, resulting in significant damage, to minor damage.

As for the interviews, maybe we won't see anything from the Navy, but there are three or four organizations doing investigations. The Navy isn't the ones in charge, or the only ones involved.

a reply to: Zaphod58

According his uncle, and stories circulating among the crew Fire Controlman 1st Class Gary Leo Rehm Jr, died after saving 20 other sailors in the berthing area. He went back to try to find the last 6 that were in the compartment, and they had to seal it off to stop the flooding.

Not sure what the criteria is for the awarding of a Navy Cross, but that would seem to be worthy. Those were, still are I suppose, balls of pure diamond.

Apparently this won't qualify for a Navy Cross:

-While engaged in action against an enemy of the United States;
-While engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force; or
-While serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.

That young man went Above and Beyond.

The recording of the USS Porter bridge before the collision in the Straits of Hormuz is out on the web. There is a difference in two opinions of how to navigate and the CO seems to manage to cause a collision with a tanker. Mistakes happen.

Not meaning to say anything about right or wrong with this one though. The true will most likely come out for this one someday.

edit:

Audio link

a reply to: Zaphod58

On one level I simply can't believe it.

330 men on a state of the art warship, and no one saw or heard a warning? This was 50 miles off the coast, it wasn't near quarter action. I know how rigorous the Royal Navy is trained, and I've no doubt the USN is of a similar standard.

On another level, the thrust of the story has changed: initially 'warship collides with container vessel', latterly 'container vessel collides with warship'. And there aren't that many, definitive, facts supporting either.

Accidents and dereliction do happen. However, I don't know of a merchant/military collision in open sea , that is probably my ignorance.

As you say multiple investigations will be carried out. The facts will be determined. I would think this is likely, but in my heart I will still find it an 'incredible' conclusion.

a reply to: seagull

I read about his actions yesterday. Maybe a new destroyer should to carry his name in his honor.

a reply to: Doxanoxa

The story usually changes as more facts are found out.

May 9, 2017: A 60- to 70-foot South Korean fishing boat collided with the U.S.S. Lake Champlain, a guided-missile cruiser, on its port side while the cruiser was conducting routine operations in international waters. No one was injured. Fishing boat crew members later said the fishing vessel did not have a radio, so they didn’t hear the calls from the Navy, a Navy official said at the time.

www.nytimes.com...

There were a number of collisions in the Persian Gulf over the years. Accidents happen.

a reply to: Doxanoxa

However, I don't know of a merchant/military collision in open sea , that is probably my ignorance.

Accidents happen. ...and for every one of 'em, there are probably hundreds of near misses. As crowded as shipping lanes can become, not to mention stupid people at the helm--or in the case of the merchy, asleep. It's actually probably more amazing that it doesn't happen more often.

Eventually the story of what happened will come out, there's no reason for it not to.

a reply to: roadgravel

That would be appropriate, I think. Certainly more appropriate than some of the names the navy uses...

a reply to: Doxanoxa

Ok chaps, enough said.

I'm saddend - as well are I'm sure - that it happend at all.

No offence meant by my comments btw.

a reply to: Doxanoxa

Why would anyone take offense? Far as I can tell, you did nothing untoward.

Whatever the explanation may end up being, it would behoove all concerned to do everything possible to prevent further collisions of this kind, whatever that may end up being.

This is not the sort of thing that should be accepted as commonplace, lest that complacence become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Container ship was on autopilot at the time, and no one was on her bridge :

Link

a reply to: silo13


Opinions please...

peace

a reply to: silo13

It made a sharp right turn, but hit it with the left side of the bow? That doesn't make sense. This guy is so far off it's not even funny. Radar isn't infallible, and collisions occur every year.

If he thinks the Burke class are "huge Navy ships" then he needs to go back to school. The Crystal was 30,000 tons gross weight, versus a destroyer that is less than 10,000 tons.

Yeah, just finished the video, and this guy is an idiot.

A guy making videos on his tube channel called something TV doesn't make that info real.

He is assuming the ship targeted that destroyer and that mistakes don't happen.

a reply to: Zaphod58

That's exactly what I said in another post Z. Not to mention I got pushback when making inquires.

a reply to: flatbush71

The leaping to conclusions started about five seconds after it hit the news. It's only gotten worse in the days since.

originally posted by: Majic
And if you can't trust Bill Clinton, who can you trust?

Good Lord, why doesn't he go by his middle name?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Good Lord, why doesn't he go by his middle name?

Could it be Hilary?

They are saying now it was a malfunctioning auto pilot.

That does explain the eradicate course changes, but it still stinks.

freebeacon.com...